East Midlands Franchise 2019-

[mallard]

Sometimes the schemes prospered and the shareholders saw a return, but sometimes the schemes didn't do so well (often because they duplicated other more established lines) and the shareholders lost their shirts.

And sometimes the schemes were out-and-out scams. More than once did members of the board at a large railway company form a separate company to build a branch line, build it almost completely on bank loans (they were supposed to be funded from a majority of shareholder funding, but many of the "shareholders" were themselves fraudulent, not that the company really cared; parliament would authorise increased loans when the calls upon the shareholders failed) only to go bankrupt and be bought out at below-construction-cost by the nearby large company... Provided a very cheap way for large companies to expand their networks and spoil other attempts to build railways close to their territory.

 

[Chester1]

67s and Mark IVs would be nowhere near the performance of a HST, let alone being faster than them... I would, if anything, try and procure some 365s to run the Corby service by December 2019, when the electrification will be complete, and cascade some of the 222s to the Nottingham route. Clearly not all of the HSTs could be replaced in this way, but it would help reduce the dependence on them at the very least.

I was suggesting using 2 class 67s, one at each end. Mark IVs weigh more than Mark IIIs but one 67 has more power than a single HST power car. Electrification is not due to be finished until 2020 and even then it will only make 3 HSTs out of 15 redundant i.e. the number before the May timetable change forced EMT to lease 3 extra sets.

The Mk4s are not cleared for the MML and probably never will be unless someone gets the chequebook out for the infrastructure alterations needed.

I think the conclusion of previous debates was that no major work would be required just minor alterations to some platforms.

 

[Carlisle]

I think the conclusion of previous debates was that no major work would be required just minor alterations to some platforms.

I’m sure that’s correct especially considering mk 4s have tilt profile bodysides

 

[Jozhua]

I was suggesting using 2 class 67s, one at each end. Mark IVs weigh more than Mark IIIs but one 67 has more power than a single HST power car. Electrification is not due to be finished until 2020 and even then it will only make 3 HSTs out of 15 redundant i.e. the number before the May timetable change forced EMT to lease 3 extra sets.



I think the conclusion of previous debates was that no major work would be required just minor alterations to some platforms.

To be honest I am quite fond of this idea, whether it will come into fruition or not! Be nice to keep some "proper" trains on the MML and the MK 4's would probably provide a nice upgrade to the slightly subpar EMT HST interiors... (aka the seats are rubbish) Also concerning the tilt clearences on MK 4's, been as trains without tilt functionality already run on the line without problems, would any alterations have to be made if the tilt function was not used at all?

 

[Qwerty133]

What on earth are you on about? The more likely outcome is that Anglia 156s can be used to replace the (vast majority of) 153s, plus there are West Midlands 170s available a few years later and new stock is always an option - plus depending when and if Liverpool to Norwich is split there may well be 158s available having been displaced by 185s etc... There's tons of options stock wise, and as for your suggestions for the HSTs to cut LNER services from Aberdeen and Inverness etc

You are almost as clueless as a certain Mr. Grayling if you think 9 2 coach units are sufficient to replace 18 single coach units that regularly run alone, yet alone provide the necessary reliability and capacity enhancements so that people aren't left behind on a daily basis on a increasing number of services (both through an ever increasing number of shortforms and rising passenger numbers making the current capacity insufficient). What may be available in a few years is not really relevant as something needs to be done much sooner than that and as far as I can tell the mothballing of a small number of infrequent routes with a bus replacement is the only way to reliably provide sufficient capacity on the remaining routes in the near future.

 

[The Box Photter]

Seems to me that the industry, because of it's artificially fragmented nature, has forgotten how rolling stock used to be cascaded to obtain maximum use out of older, but perfectly serviceable stock. These days TOCs seem to be hypnotised by the lure of shiny new units (no doubt at higher lease costs) in the mistaken belief that it will paper over the fundamental cracks in the service provision.

Admittedly, the travelling public is sick of Pacers, so I'm not advocating their superannuation yet again, but it would seem that the use of MkIV carriages and chronically under-used class 67 locos would fill a niche. It can't be beyond the wit of NR to carry out some gauging tests to make sure the MkIVs won't graunch along the platform edges etc.

If the Lincolnshire rural lines aren't capable of handling cascaded Meridians or off-lease class 185s, then they should be redeployed on routes that can accommodate them so that Sprinters can be re-allocated to the rural EMT services. Because there's no joined up thinking and because the TOCs are obsessed with paying the lowest possible in track access charges (which means fighting over low-weight multiple units) passengers are having to endure chronic overcrowding and short notice cancellations.

It was notable when watching the latest episode of Chris Tarrant's Railway Adventures in Austria & Switzerland how often he was on a loco-hauled service comprising 7 or 8 coaches. These weren't high speed interurban services either, they were short distance, local services. If Europe can offer passengers the comfort of travelling in a train without the incessant drone of an engine beneath their feet, why can't the UK?

Off-topic, but I also noticed how many of the modern Austrian and Swiss trains had half-drop opening windows which were large enough for Mr Tarrant to be able to get a good view out. Why in the UK are we not trusted to open windows anymore ?

 

[Jozhua]

Seems to me that the industry, because of it's artificially fragmented nature, has forgotten how rolling stock used to be cascaded to obtain maximum use out of older, but perfectly serviceable stock. These days TOCs seem to be hypnotised by the lure of shiny new units (no doubt at higher lease costs) in the mistaken belief that it will paper over the fundamental cracks in the service provision.

Admittedly, the travelling public is sick of Pacers, so I'm not advocating their superannuation yet again, but it would seem that the use of MkIV carriages and chronically under-used class 67 locos would fill a niche. It can't be beyond the wit of NR to carry out some gauging tests to make sure the MkIVs won't graunch along the platform edges etc.

If the Lincolnshire rural lines aren't capable of handling cascaded Meridians or off-lease class 185s, then they should be redeployed on routes that can accommodate them so that Sprinters can be re-allocated to the rural EMT services. Because there's no joined up thinking and because the TOCs are obsessed with paying the lowest possible in track access charges (which means fighting over low-weight multiple units) passengers are having to endure chronic overcrowding and short notice cancellations.

It was notable when watching the latest episode of Chris Tarrant's Railway Adventures in Austria & Switzerland how often he was on a loco-hauled service comprising 7 or 8 coaches. These weren't high speed interurban services either, they were short distance, local services. If Europe can offer passengers the comfort of travelling in a train without the incessant drone of an engine beneath their feet, why can't the UK?

Off-topic, but I also noticed how many of the modern Austrian and Swiss trains had half-drop opening windows which were large enough for Mr Tarrant to be able to get a good view out. Why in the UK are we not trusted to open windows anymore ?

Completely agree! Was unaware of issues surrounding track access charges, what difference does the length/weight of the train make to the price?

Would be good if track access was charged on a per passenger basis, especially in the days of e-tickets and computer systems handing out all the the tickets?

 

[43074]

You are almost as clueless as a certain Mr. Grayling if you think 9 2 coach units are sufficient to replace 18 single coach units that regularly run alone, yet alone provide the necessary reliability and capacity enhancements so that people aren't left behind on a daily basis on a increasing number of services (both through an ever increasing number of shortforms and rising passenger numbers making the current capacity insufficient). What may be available in a few years is not really relevant as something needs to be done much sooner than that and as far as I can tell the mothballing of a small number of infrequent routes with a bus replacement is the only way to reliably provide sufficient capacity on the remaining routes in the near future.

That would almost certainly be politically unacceptable though, and given this franchise is about growing the Lincolnshire routes it isn't going to happen is it? Besides, all you do is displace a very small number of 153s, so doesn't really have such an impact to make it worthwhile. Taking the 9 Anglia 156s and running the 153s with a derogation would be a good short term fix that would add capacity, replacing all 21 153s would be ideal but I don't see how it could be done in 12 months given nothing suitable is due off lease in that timeframe. If we have to reduce services I would suggest doing things like reverting the Leicester to Lincoln service to a Leicester to Loughborough shuttle and running the Nottingham to Lincoln section with two units, not running the Matlock service beyond Derby and withdrawing off peak Mansfield Woodhouse shuttles, not by withdrawing services where people have few alternatives to begin with and where bustitution would be unsuitable due to the distances involved anyway.

 

[The Box Photter]

Why scrap perfectly serviceable trains because they fail to meet an artificially imposed requirement to be accessible for reduced mobility passengers. Now I agree that it would be admirable to ensure that 100% of the country's rolling stock is fully accessible, but that isn't possible yet.

 

[Killingworth]

Why scrap perfectly serviceable trains because they fail to meet an artificially imposed requirement to be accessible for reduced mobility passengers. Now I agree that it would be admirable to ensure that 100% of the country's rolling stock is fully accessible, but that isn't possible yet.

To make trains accessible for those with even minor disabilities platforms need attention long before rolling stock! It's not much good being able to move up and down inside the train when many have real fears about getting in and out in the first place.

 

[Chester1]

To be honest I am quite fond of this idea, whether it will come into fruition or not! Be nice to keep some "proper" trains on the MML and the MK 4's would probably provide a nice upgrade to the slightly subpar EMT HST interiors... (aka the seats are rubbish) Also concerning the tilt clearences on MK 4's, been as trains without tilt functionality already run on the line without problems, would any alterations have to be made if the tilt function was not used at all?

Mark IVs have never tilted. They were built with passive provision for tilting but tilt kit was installed. The biggest benefit of switching from IIIs to IVs would be power doors and much less work required for PRM-TSI compliance. I am not sure if they are already compliant but they are certainly closer than IIIs.

Why scrap perfectly serviceable trains because they fail to meet an artificially imposed requirement to be accessible for reduced mobility passengers. Now I agree that it would be admirable to ensure that 100% of the country's rolling stock is fully accessible, but that isn't possible yet.

You are right that all trains cannot be made compliant for the deadline, there will need to be some short term derogations for some sprinters and a solution to Scotrail HSTs delays. It is not unreasonable to expect all intercity services to be operated by compliant stock by the end of this year. It is certainly possible too. There are huge numbers of Mark IVs available soon and there are options to use them instead of Mark IVs. Unfortunately the option of using them with class 43 power cars would require a huge rewire and reduction in performance. 67s can haul them and some are available and it is likely more or even all 30 would be available for 3-4 year leases for the right price. There are enough 100mph diesel locos to replace them elsewhere. I know HSTs are many people's favourite trains but that won't stop most of them being scrapped soon.

 

[Class 170101]

Off-topic, but I also noticed how many of the modern Austrian and Swiss trains had half-drop opening windows which were large enough for Mr Tarrant to be able to get a good view out. Why in the UK are we not trusted to open windows anymore?

Might want to read that article linked to below to see why unfortunately?

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...ain-and-hitting-head-on-tree-branch-says-raib

Seems to me that the industry, because of it's artificially fragmented nature, has forgotten how rolling stock used to be cascaded to obtain maximum use out of older, but perfectly serviceable stock. These days TOCs seem to be hypnotised by the lure of shiny new units (no doubt at higher lease costs) in the mistaken belief that it will paper over the fundamental cracks in the service provision.

Leasing costs have been falling of late actually. Hence why Class 350/2 going to store and new trains being built and leased.

 

[whhistle]

Why in the UK are we not trusted to open windows anymore ?

Because "people" still stick their head out when travelling at 80mph and die...
Of course, it will always be the Railways fault, so the hassle factor means closed windows forever more.

 

[whhistle]

Taking the 9 Anglia 156s and running the 153s with a derogation would be a good short term fix that would add capacity, replacing all 21 153s would be ideal but I don't see how it could be done in 12 months given nothing suitable is due off lease in that timeframe.

The 16 3-coach 175s from TfW could be transferred to XC to replace 13 2-coach 170s. XC to retain their 3-coach 170s.

Send the 13 ex-XC 2-coach 170s to EMT, and together with all 170s (23 units) from WMT, they could replace the whole 153/156 EMT fleet as the numbers of units match exactly.

The 11 Ex-EMT 153s = scrap.
The 15 Ex-EMT 156 to Northern to replace the 150s (the numbers match exactly again).
Northern 150s = scrap.

Perhaps not in 12 months, but if a firm plan/contract is in place, then so long as it happens by 2022, then surely itd be better than the situation now?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The 16 3-coach 175s from TfW could be transferred to XC to replace 13 2-coach 170s. XC to retain their 3-coach 170s.

Send the 13 ex-XC 2-coach 170s to EMT, and together with all 170s (23 units) from WMT, they could replace the whole 153/156 EMT fleet as the numbers of units match exactly.

The 11 Ex-EMT 153s = scrap.
The 15 Ex-EMT 156 to Northern to replace the 150s (the numbers match exactly again).
Northern 150s = scrap.

Perhaps not in 12 months, but if a firm plan/contract is in place, then so long as it happens by 2022, then surely itd be better than the situation now?

That doesn't allow for any room for growth. It's a laudable aim to get rid of the venerable 150s (and 153s), but surely they could still be used for strengthening services and increasing reliability? And the 150s are hardly much older than the 156s anyway; the 153s are equally old.

Plus I'm not sure how well the 175s would cope with a move to CrossCountry (quite ignoring the fact that they are about 10% heavier, so the track access charges would be higher) - they have a purpose built depot at Chester and I rather wonder if, like their faster 180 brethren, they might suffer from unreliability if they were moved to Tyseley, as they are hardly going to have a new depot built at this stage in their lifetime.

 

[bunnahabhain]

I'd rather keep 156s personally, they have excellent space for storage of luggage and bicycles, which 170s do not possess. It makes them extremely useful for commuter runs and Summer Skegness runs.

 

[43074]

Plus I'm not sure how well the 175s would cope with a move to CrossCountry (quite ignoring the fact that they are about 10% heavier, so the track access charges would be higher) - they have a purpose built depot at Chester and I rather wonder if, like their faster 180 brethren, they might suffer from unreliability if they were moved to Tyseley, as they are hardly going to have a new depot built at this stage in their lifetime.

Plus the 170s are good people movers, wide doors at 1/3 and 2/3 etc, to be honest they're perfect for the routes in and out of Birmingham that they're used on, even if the two car units in particular are lacking in capacity. I'd rather transfer some the the WMR 170s to XC to be honest, and increase capacity that way. The 175s are a pretty bespoke fleet and not all that reliable so I wouldn't be surprised if at least some of them were to go for scrap when TfW have finished with them.

 

[DanTrain]

The 16 3-coach 175s from TfW could be transferred to XC to replace 13 2-coach 170s. XC to retain their 3-coach 170s.

Send the 13 ex-XC 2-coach 170s to EMT, and together with all 170s (23 units) from WMT, they could replace the whole 153/156 EMT fleet as the numbers of units match exactly.

The 11 Ex-EMT 153s = scrap.
The 15 Ex-EMT 156 to Northern to replace the 150s (the numbers match exactly again).
Northern 150s = scrap.

Perhaps not in 12 months, but if a firm plan/contract is in place, then so long as it happens by 2022, then surely itd be better than the situation now?

Which 150s are you talking about here, Northern has a lot more than 15 150s, and they're better suited than 156s to many lines with their 1/3 2/3 doors rather than the slow end doors on 156s, whereas 156s work fairly well on EMTs rural routes. Surely the 170s, even if XC were to give them up, would be better employed on Northern somewhere than on EMT. In fact, surely 170s -> Northern and then 158s -> EMT would be much more logical vis-à-vis crew traction knowledge anyway?

 

[43096]

I was suggesting using 2 class 67s, one at each end. Mark IVs weigh more than Mark IIIs but one 67 has more power than a single HST power car. Electrification is not due to be finished until 2020 and even then it will only make 3 HSTs out of 15 redundant i.e. the number before the May timetable change forced EMT to lease 3 extra sets.

Where are you getting 15 HST sets from? There’s 12: 9 8-car and 3 6-car.

I would also point out that 67s are not permitted to do 125mph AFAIAA.

 

[Qwerty133]

Which 150s are you talking about here, Northern has a lot more than 15 150s, and they're better suited than 156s to many lines with their 1/3 2/3 doors rather than the slow end doors on 156s, whereas 156s work fairly well on EMTs rural routes. Surely the 170s, even if XC were to give them up, would be better employed on Northern somewhere than on EMT. In fact, surely 170s -> Northern and then 158s -> EMT would be much more logical vis-à-vis crew traction knowledge anyway?

I'm personally of the view that 170s are the least bad option for Liverpool to Norwich in the medium term. While it probably wouldn't be entirely accurate to consider the 158s as life expired it probably is time to move them to either lighter loaded and lower speed rural services or to commuter services where they spend the vast majority of their time in multiple. Therefore I personally think the East Midlands 158 fleet should be replaced with something more modern o Liverpool to Norwich services and used to replace the EMT 153s (maybe with a few heading to Northern to free 170s for EMT) with any other freed up 158s heading to SWR with the view for the ones at SWR being the last sprinters to be withdrawn in about 2040.

 

[DanTrain]

I'm personally of the view that 170s are the least bad option for Liverpool to Norwich in the medium term. While it probably wouldn't be entirely accurate to consider the 158s as life expired it probably is time to move them to either lighter loaded and lower speed rural services or to commuter services where they spend the vast majority of their time in multiple. Therefore I personally think the East Midlands 158 fleet should be replaced with something more modern o Liverpool to Norwich services and used to replace the EMT 153s (maybe with a few heading to Northern to free 170s for EMT) with any other freed up 158s heading to SWR with the view for the ones at SWR being the last sprinters to be withdrawn in about 2040.

Actually that makes some sense, I forgot about Liv-Norwich! In which case, EMT can keep their 156s until they (hopefully) get a full GA style fleet replacement in 5-10 years time.

 

[Killingworth]

Actually that makes some sense, I forgot about Liv-Norwich! In which case, EMT can keep their 156s until they (hopefully) get a full GA style fleet replacement in 5-10 years time.

Sorry that wouldn't work. 170s are a fixed 2 or 3 car formation without walk through.

On the section from Liverpool to Sheffield in particular the potential walk through capability of a 4, 6 or even 8 car 158 makes use of all the capacity better than a current 6 coach TPE 185 where one half can be rammed yet there are seats in the other. A trolley is currently able to work through the 4 coach 158s, but not a 6 coach 185.

 

[Chester1]

Where are you getting 15 HST sets from? There’s 12: 9 8-car and 3 6-car.

I would also point out that 67s are not permitted to do 125mph AFAIAA.

I remembered 12, obviously for the wrong reason. I thought 67s were designed for 125mph although run at 100mph?

 

[43096]

I remembered 12, obviously for the wrong reason. I thought 67s were designed for 125mph although run at 100mph?

Designed for, yes. In the same way that Class 91 was designed for 140mph.

 

[swt_passenger]

Sorry that wouldn't work. 170s are a fixed 2 or 3 car formation without walk through.

On the section from Liverpool to Sheffield in particular the potential walk through capability of a 4, 6 or even 8 car 158 makes use of all the capacity better than a current 6 coach TPE 185 where one half can be rammed yet there are seats in the other. A trolley is currently able to work through the 4 coach 158s, but not a 6 coach 185.

Exactly the same reasoning that SWT used when trading in 170s for 158s.

 

[43074]

Actually that makes some sense, I forgot about Liv-Norwich! In which case, EMT can keep their 156s until they (hopefully) get a full GA style fleet replacement in 5-10 years time.

If a GA style replacement were to happen in the next franchise it would be in the next 2 or 3 years, which is fine as long as the fleet is supplemented with something else (i.e. GA 156s) until then.

 

[The Box Photter]

To make trains accessible for those with even minor disabilities platforms need attention long before rolling stock! It's not much good being able to move up and down inside the train when many have real fears about getting in and out in the first place.

I'm not disagreeing with you, or those who genuinely need accessible public transport. There should be a requirement to consider the needs of all users, which includes making sure there's a train to run the service in the first place and that it should have comfortable seats and not bombard passengers with overly loud, meaningless announcements every 30 seconds. For passengers with certain kinds of tinnitus, these can cause pain and extreme discomfort.

 

[The Box Photter]

Designed for, yes. In the same way that Class 91 was designed for 140mph.

The Class 91s were designed for 140 mph but it was decided that the service didn't need anything more than 125 mph and as I seem to remember, it would have involved costly resignalling.

The Class 67s were designed to achieve 125 mph but NR didn't want their nasty 4-wheeled bogies to damage their precious track, so the 100 mph limit was imposed. Given the (mis)use to which the 67s have been put, I'd be surprised if any have experienced 100 mph running for extended periods.

 

[43096]

Given the (mis)use to which the 67s have been put, I'd be surprised if any have experienced 100 mph running for extended periods.

East Coast Thunderbird duties would be the most likely - though it would take them a while to get there.

 

[Chester1]

The Class 91s were designed for 140 mph but it was decided that the service didn't need anything more than 125 mph and as I seem to remember, it would have involved costly resignalling.

The Class 67s were designed to achieve 125 mph but NR didn't want their nasty 4-wheeled bogies to damage their precious track, so the 100 mph limit was imposed. Given the (mis)use to which the 67s have been put, I'd be surprised if any have experienced 100 mph running for extended periods.

This thread seems to support 125mph running. There are other references on the internet to 125mph speeds too.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/sale-of-two-db-class-67s-to-colas.138172/page-3

It would appear they could run at 125mph with some work and the correct paperwork. It depends on how important meeting the PRM deadline is for intercity services. 2 + 8 Mark IVs would be a good power to weight ratio. I suspect the government is happy to just grant derogations for 3-4 years.